Derangement and a refusal to take their psychotropic drugs. Of course, since they invented anger management, they do not have to take those classes either. Then, of course, they are people who consistenty find fault with everything. Complaining, whining, and keening are just a natural facet of their personalities.

Every journalist - at least every left-leaning journalist - without fail seeks to use such a comment to provide them cover. It's their constant attempt to redefine the argument. Dan Rather - who I actually liked - was the template for this. He always liked to say that he was disappointing liberals as well as "right wingers". But he never had a liberal name he could use to illustrate his statements.

I stand behind no one in my disdain for Keith Olbermann's "journalism", but I respect the fact that he is honest about who he is.

The leftards are just keeping their political-paintball sliming skills sharpened up in case The Dear Leader needs to threaten to use them again. It's like military war exercises used as a threat. The refusal of most American citizens to risk taking such a sliming over a silly political argument has been a lever to keep opposition comments suppressed. The Tea Parties are now the only out of control activity. Look for lots more sliming of those good citizens attendees as "hooligans", which is Communist newspeak for free citizens assembling to protest being robbed by Communists. There are nothing but "Hooligans" everywhere in Venezuela since Chavez started his organized robbery of that country's citizens.The Obama/Chavez relationship is one of mutual respect since they face the same problems.

He was a stand up comic. Now what is he? Seems like he's become lost in some strange no man's land where he's not about comedy because he's too partisan and not about reporting because he's too unserious. What happened to the funny?

Jason (the commenter) said... Maybe both views are wrong, but perhaps one of them is right.I think both views are probably correct. Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense), but other times I think the problem is simple MSM incompetance.

The MSM tends left and tries to help left causes (thus angering the right), but they are not too bright and do a lousy job of it (thus angering the left).

As has been said, the classic "both sides hate me therefore I must be in the middle" is in full operation, however he did single out the left as being more vitriolic. The ratio has to be at least 5:1 for him to cop to that.

Of course he didn't post any thoughtful comments that disagreed with him. They had to have some at WaPo right?

"Derangement and a refusal to take their psychotropic drugs. Of course, since they invented anger management, they do not have to take those classes either. Then, of course, they are people who consistenty find fault with everything. Complaining, whining, and keening are just a natural facet of their personalities."

And presumably-after writing a sentence like that- you'll be pontificating about the left's penchant for ad hominem attacks and generalization...oh, the irony.

"Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense)"

I've been thinking about this as well. I tend to think that a lot of liberals just don't see themselves as "liberal", they just see themselves as "smart" or "educated" or "enlightened". Makes everyone who disagrees with you as stupid and ignorant rather than simply having a different opinion.

"Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense)"

How is this limited to the left? We are all a petri-dish of biases and prejudices irrespective of political leanings. We all cling to dogmas and ignore or rationalize things that dont agree with us. Thats a human trait.

And presumably-after writing a sentence like that- you'll be pontificating about the left's penchant for ad hominem attacks and generalization...oh, the irony.Presumably, after putting words in another commenter's mouth, you'll pontificating about the right's penchant for building straw men...oh, the irony.

He wasn't saying both sides hate me so I must be doing something right. He said he was told it's instructive to read the comments and a mistake to ignore them, then when he does, they amount to thoughtless aspersions cast incoherently and with incomprehensible anger.

You must admit, certain terms red flag comments to what follows is not well considered. Leftard for example, used above, suggesting the individual on the left is retarded but impugning the entire left to retardation, wingnut, seen here often, its opposite. Moonbat originally referencing British radical George Monbiot now applied exclusively to the left but implying they're all insane, knuckledraggers its opposite for the right, suggesting atavism to hairier hominid forms not quite yet walking entirely erect. And many many many other common disparagements sprinkled liberally in comments as if carelessly shaken like salt from a neologism-shaker, at one time amusingly creative but now so outworn they mark the user as incapable of thinking and expressing without them.

"...you'll be pontificating about the left's penchant for ad hominem attacks and generalization...THAT'S the part that's putting words in his mouth. If you want to whine about the irony, you'll have to wait until he actually says it. You're better than that, Minzo. SLOPPY.

People get radicalized by joining angry groups, whether at demonstrations in real life or in the virtual world of the internet. If you see a lot of angry people and agree with them, then you tend to think the angry behavior in public is acceptable.

After a while you're waving signs and chanting silly slogans, or leaving acid (though stereotypical and utterly predictable) comments on the internet.

I'm not a big fan of radicalization, because it's usually just hate dressed up with a few slogans that adherents rarely question. Appealing to reality doesn't find the slightest chink in the armor of a believer, because he hears the holy writ of his own side every day, on partisan TV shows or blogs.

People tend to believe what they hear most often. It's simple human nature, and partisans take advantage of it to create echo chambers for their true believers.

The Left got so used to it that they can't drop the hatred of the Bush years. Once radicalized, with all the radical TV programming and blogs still here, they aren't going to stop. The Right is doing their best to catch up by imitating the Left style on Glenn Beck, the internet, and in street protests.

It's sad, it's not really democratic in that it blinds much of the electorate to reality, and it's going to continue because it fills a need for absolute truth rather than messy reality.

Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense), but other times I think the problem is simple MSM incompetance.

Liberals don't have a problem seeing liberal bias. They really aren't that stupid. Rather, they deny it because they know it works in their favor. They also know that admitting the bias is the first step towards losing that advantage.

I think my decent into "neutrality" is from reading enough history to see the damage when radicals get their way.

There's a difference between goals and methods, ends and means.

I think we have all these rules, laws, traditions, and constitutions for a reason. Let's use them. They are a way of allowing change without letting the nutballs radically transform society in their image.

The US system is designed to block rapid change. That's why it's still around. Even FDR was stopped by the Court.

What seems crystal clear one year is foolish the next. If something is the right way to go, eventually it'll convince enough people that it will be implemented. If not, then it probably wasn't. The US and the West didn't become the best places to live (and powerful besides) by allowing a few people with all the answers to dominate society. Such people have led many nations (Russia, Germany, France, and China) to disaster.

At some point we need to trust our elections to work in the long run, even if we lose half the time.

I'm fine with protests, rowdy commenters, etc. That's protected speech. It's just that the kind of people who tend to engage in that speech aren't typically very open to the idea that their opponents aren't evil invaders from Sirius bent on enslaving their children. There is no one ideology with all the answers all the time. Marx started that fad, and too many people fall into it.

"How is this limited to the left? We are all a petri-dish of biases and prejudices irrespective of political leanings."Having biases isn't limited to the Left, but the Left seems to have an especially difficult time acknowledging theirs.

“There is no one ideology with all the answers all the time. Marx started that fad, and too many people fall into it.”

John Lynch, you nailed it. We would do well not to fall into it ourselves. My strong hunch is that the Democrats are going to get devastated in the 2010 midterm elections. If that is the case, it is an opportunity to NOT engage in self-serving partisanship. Let’s take that opportunity and try to make something of it.